The Supreme Court decision re: the 10 Commandments has brought Judge Roy Moore back to the edges of the spotlight. The statement is frequently mde by the secularists that Judge Roy’s monument "clearly violated the Establishment Clause."

Well, NO! It didn’t violate it at all. Too bad there are 5 justices on the Supreme Court who can’t read simple declarative English sentences.

First, the Judge’s bias toward Christianity does NOT clearly violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because that Amendment says only "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (Capital letters added.)

Note that nothing Judge Roy Moore does regarding the Ten Commandments creates an establishment of a national religion. Note also that the First Amendment only prohibits the CONGRESS of the United States from acting, but does NOT prohibit states or other local governments from doing whatsoever they may regarding religion. So even if Judge Moore tried to establish a religion, the 1st Amendment’s words do not prevent his attempt. He is not Congress.

Note also that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That "free exercise" would, quite clearly, include Judge Moore’s building a monument of the Ten Commandments and putting it wherever he wished. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from interfering with Judge Moore’s exercise of religious freedom.

There are only 3 ways a government can derive authority and legitimacy: One can either have a rule of God, a theocracy, which our Founding Fathers wisely prohibited; one can have a rule of men, which degenerates inevitably toward totalitarianism or mob rule or anarchy or other chaotic state; or one can have a rule of law. And if that rule of law is to prevent chaos, it must be strict and clear and the interpretation must not change with every whim of the populace or with every change of political leaders or every ebb and flow of political tides, or otherwise it just deteriorates into a rule of men. And we don’t want dictatorships, mob rule, or anarchy, do we?

Well, I don’t. It seems to me, however, that the US Supreme Court has decided, in many of its decisions in the past decades, that they don’t want a rule of law, but do indeed prefer a rule of men. And they want to be THE MAN! One can see Souter and Kennedy and Ginsbrg hopping around, waving their arms, chantin g"Who da man? Who da man?" They have decided that they are The Man and they can change the meaning and the wording and the interpretation of the Constitution at will, despite the clear words of the Constitution and the volumes of documents that the Founding Fathers left to illustrate what they meant. Too often, a majority of the Supreme Court dislikes the rules that the Constitution establishes and so they twist and squirm and wiggle and obfuscate and change the law to fit their opinion rather than that of the Founding Fathers.

Equal under the law? Well, no, we like affirmative action, so we’ll give our OK, at least for the next 25 years! Then we may change our mind and make affirmative action unconstitutional again....

Private property rights? Heck no, everything belongs to government!

Not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Nah, gee, we want to infringe it some here and there and more and more and maybe we’ll do away with it altogether some day...(Justice Souter under his breath mutters, "Gotta get me an assault rifle...looks like they may be comin’ for my house now...")

We do have a mechanism for changing the Constitution, a method which, other than the 17th and the 18th Amendments, has most often worked out well. The Founding Fathers cleverly called it "amending the constitution." But the SCOTUS doesn’t want to attempt amendment, they just want to abrogate the Constitution at their whim.

This should be opposed in all manners possible.